Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tyel wrote:


As an example of the issues:
1. You need a USR for rerolling charges.
2. And rerolling advances.
3. And being able to advance and charge.
4. And roll an extra dice to charge and use the highest two.
5. And being able to fall back and charge.
6. And being able to fallback and shoot.
7. And being able to ignore movement penalties for charging over normally slowing terrain.
8. And being able to move that unit through models.

I'm at 8 of my 12 USRs and I'm probably not yet entirely through "rules in current 40k impacting movement." You can (and a sensible designer possibly would) just say "fine, just we won't have those rules in our game" - but then you are somewhat cutting 40k as we know it apart.

Or you could just have have:
Reroll (X): Models can reroll the specificed rolls. (Also covers rerolling shooting, melee etc)
Fallback (X): Unit can fall back and preform the specified action(s).
Ignore Terrain (X): Units can ignore the specified terrain type(s) when moving.

I feel like when people try to complain about the amount of USRs GW would need they haven't really thought it through.

Tyel wrote:
I think its when you want to USRify everything else beyond this that things get awkward if you want to avoid a 7th edition.

You've illustrated that you'd need a whole bunch of USRs to handle all the minute permutations of similar abilities; I'd contend that the fact that all those minute permutations exist is the problem to begin with that USRs could solve. And as others have stated, abilities that need some sliding scale like FNPs can be handled as FNP(X).

So I mean, you could replace all those variations of 'you charge better'- extra die drop lowest, re-roll any, re-roll all, and so on- with Fast Charge (X), where X is either 1 or 2 and that's how many dice you can re-roll when you charge. That provides two levels of improvement and consolidates similar effects into a standardized mechanic. Or, it could be just a straight bonus to your roll; a somewhat different mechanic, but accomplishing the same end goal and providing more room for adjustment.

For abilities that are actually rare, then they don't need to be USRs. But that requires having a plan for game design for an edition, which I suppose GW does not.

Another strike against 7th is the use of nested USRs and unintuitively-named ones. Hammer of Wrath and It Will Not Die are flowery and evocative but a simple Impact Hits or Regeneration are easier to learn. Conveying the flavor of the setting should never get in the way of clear rules. It could be done better.

Also, Kiro is right- the game is chock-full of USRs already. Not just things like Blast, Obsec, FNP, and Deep Strike, but also Pistol, Rapid Fire, Heavy, Assault, Infantry, Vehicle, Monster. I can only imagine what sort of hell we'd be in if GW decided every weapon needed its own bespoke rules handling when you can shoot it; slotting weapons into just a couple of USRs has been fine.

 catbarf wrote:


So I mean, you could replace all those variations of 'you charge better'- extra die drop lowest, re-roll any, re-roll all, and so on- with Fast Charge (X), where X is either 1 or 2 and that's how many dice you can re-roll when you charge. That provides two levels of improvement and consolidates similar effects into a standardized mechanic.

And this is where flavour people conflict with balance people.

For balance, anti-bloat, or anti- cognitive burden folks, your solution rocks. I can genuinely see its merits, and I totally understand why you would propose this.

But I love these varieties of charge improvement as methods of distinguishing one faction from another, one subfaction from another or one unit from another. These varieties in particular provide very meaningful differentiations- more so than numeric variations. There's a huge difference between advance + charge and fallback + charge and reroll (x) charge dice. It's a very fluffy, flavourful difference that clearly denotes the character of the unit(s) it applies to:

Advance + Charge: Sprinters with the highest top speed, but lots of variation in performance (raw untrained speed)
Fallback + Charge: Not particularly fast, but really good reflexes and observation skills (good melee training)
Reroll (x) Charge Dice: Less top speed but more reliable performance (speed training)

Reducing ALL of that to Reroll (x) Charge dice just KILLS all of that flavour and differentiation and makes the six limbed aliens so much more similar to both the genetically enhanced and the non-genetically enhanced bipeds, that it reduces the choice to play one or the other from a choice of "skin" vs. a choice of "character class" (to use videogame terms).

Obviously, deepstrike, scout move and FNP abilities have less actual differentiation and flavour, so it would be easier to standardize those- I'm not saying there is no value in consolidation. Some abilities are just ripe for it. But to me, this charge issue very much demonstrates the line that should not be crossed when it comes to simplifying.

Remove out of LoS shooting entirely - with the exception of a very few, fairly weak weapons - I.E. AsM Mortars.

Like in Apoc, institute an end phase for all damage; that way you can actually use the minis you put on the board even if you go second.

Move away from the d6 - to d8, d10 or d12.

Remove all FnP rules and replace all of the game-breaking "ignore invulnerable saves" rules with just dealing mortal wounds.

Prune 75% of the Strats avail - most are either too situational or nearly game-breaking and are almost always used every turn.

PenitentJake wrote:

And this is where flavour people conflict with balance people.

For balance, anti-bloat, or anti- cognitive burden folks, your solution rocks. I can genuinely see its merits, and I totally understand why you would propose this.

But I love these varieties of charge improvement as methods of distinguishing one faction from another, one subfaction from another or one unit from another. These varieties in particular provide very meaningful differentiations- more so than numeric variations. There's a huge difference between advance + charge and fallback + charge and reroll (x) charge dice. It's a very fluffy, flavourful difference that clearly denotes the character of the unit(s) it applies to:

Advance + Charge: Sprinters with the highest top speed, but lots of variation in performance (raw untrained speed)
Fallback + Charge: Not particularly fast, but really good reflexes and observation skills (good melee training)
Reroll (x) Charge Dice: Less top speed but more reliable performance (speed training)

Reducing ALL of that to Reroll (x) Charge dice just KILLS all of that flavour and differentiation and makes the six limbed aliens so much more similar to both the genetically enhanced and the non-genetically enhanced bipeds, that it reduces the choice to play one or the other from a choice of "skin" vs. a choice of "character class" (to use videogame terms).

Obviously, deepstrike, scout move and FNP abilities have less actual differentiation and flavour, so it would be easier to standardize those- I'm not saying there is no value in consolidation. Some abilities are just ripe for it. But to me, this charge issue very much demonstrates the line that should not be crossed when it comes to simplifying.

yes, because

Reroll one dice
Reroll both dice
Reroll failed
+x" to your charge

all have so much flavorful differences

And were not saying that you couldnt have

Reroll
Advance+ charge
fallback + shoot/charge

as USRs either, i don't know how you got that from what was being discussed


here is a quick list of USR we could put in the game right now :

Scout (x) : pregame move of x"
deepstrike (x) : deepstrike within x"
Reroll (list actions here)
Relentless (x) : unmodified X+'s cause extra hits
Psyker (X) : psyker level (1 cast/deny per level)
FnP (x) : X+++
fast (x) : automatically advance X"
charger : advance + charge
tricky : fallback counts as a normal move
furious (x) : x extra hits when charging

with only these, you could already have a solid base for a game and a good framework to work from.

wanna make tesla in that system? : Relentless (5+)
wanna make harlequin panoply: Charger + tricky
wanna make a strong psyker character ? : Psyker(3) + Reroll(psychic)
want to make marine bikers? : fast(6) + furious(2)

and most importantly : THE DEFINITIONS OF THESE USRs WOULD BE ON THE DATASHEET DIRECTLY (and in the brb/codexes as a reminder)

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EDIT: To add clarity to my hyperbolic rant. In 5th-7th I was traveling around the country (US) and in the multiple communities that I would play in, I could always find leagues and game nights dedicated to 40k. Since the end of 8th (around Psychic Awakening time) in those same communities, it's impossible to find a pick up game or league. Everyone has moved onto other games (including some GW games). When I inquire, the sentiment seems to be the same... "9th is not fun" "there's too much book keeping" "the learning curve is too high for new players" etc etc

This rings true to me. 7th, for all its insanity, was still fun. 9th is not as fun. They've over-designed it.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

And this is where flavour people conflict with balance people.

For balance, anti-bloat, or anti- cognitive burden folks, your solution rocks. I can genuinely see its merits, and I totally understand why you would propose this.

But I love these varieties of charge improvement as methods of distinguishing one faction from another, one subfaction from another or one unit from another. These varieties in particular provide very meaningful differentiations- more so than numeric variations. There's a huge difference between advance + charge and fallback + charge and reroll (x) charge dice. It's a very fluffy, flavourful difference that clearly denotes the character of the unit(s) it applies to:

Advance + Charge: Sprinters with the highest top speed, but lots of variation in performance (raw untrained speed)
Fallback + Charge: Not particularly fast, but really good reflexes and observation skills (good melee training)
Reroll (x) Charge Dice: Less top speed but more reliable performance (speed training)

Reducing ALL of that to Reroll (x) Charge dice just KILLS all of that flavour and differentiation and makes the six limbed aliens so much more similar to both the genetically enhanced and the non-genetically enhanced bipeds, that it reduces the choice to play one or the other from a choice of "skin" vs. a choice of "character class" (to use videogame terms).

Obviously, deepstrike, scout move and FNP abilities have less actual differentiation and flavour, so it would be easier to standardize those- I'm not saying there is no value in consolidation. Some abilities are just ripe for it. But to me, this charge issue very much demonstrates the line that should not be crossed when it comes to simplifying.

yes, because

Reroll one dice
Reroll both dice
Reroll failed
+x" to your charge

all have so much flavorful differences

And were not saying that you couldnt have

Reroll
Advance+ charge
fallback + shoot/charge

as USRs either, i don't know how you got that from what was being discussed


here is a quick list of USR we could put in the game right now :

Scout (x) : pregame move of x"
deepstrike (x) : deepstrike within x"
Reroll (list actions here)
Relentless (x) : unmodified X+'s cause extra hits
Psyker (X) : psyker level (1 cast/deny per level)
FnP (x) : X+++
fast (x) : automatically advance X"
charger : advance + charge
tricky : fallback counts as a normal move
furious (x) : x extra hits when charging

with only these, you could already have a solid base for a game and a good framework to work from.

wanna make tesla in that system? : Relentless (5+)
wanna make harlequin panoply: Charger + tricky
wanna make a strong psyker character ? : Psyker(3) + Reroll(psychic)
want to make marine bikers? : fast(6) + furious(2)

and most importantly : THE DEFINITIONS OF THESE USRs WOULD BE ON THE DATASHEET DIRECTLY (and in the brb/codexes as a reminder)

Just to add on top of that, FNP shouldn’t really be a USR, it should be a normal resolution sequence step: hit, wound, save, distribute damage, apply any FNP, remove models; and be directly included in the statline. Just like everyone thinks about it anyway.

Insectum7 wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EDIT: To add clarity to my hyperbolic rant. In 5th-7th I was traveling around the country (US) and in the multiple communities that I would play in, I could always find leagues and game nights dedicated to 40k. Since the end of 8th (around Psychic Awakening time) in those same communities, it's impossible to find a pick up game or league. Everyone has moved onto other games (including some GW games). When I inquire, the sentiment seems to be the same... "9th is not fun" "there's too much book keeping" "the learning curve is too high for new players" etc etc

This rings true to me. 7th, for all its insanity, was still fun. 9th is not as fun. They've over-designed it.

As to „9th is not fun anymore”, a huge part of it for me is the pseudo-law language it is written in - reading it became a chore. That is because English language is horrible when it comes to being precise and easily readable at the same time, as it doesn’t allow null-subject sentences. So you have to have either an insane number of repetitions or long constructions to point out exactly which part of the previous sentence/paragraph you are referring to. This limitation of English when compared to e.g. Polish is also a reason why I was often amazed how some people rule-lawyered about rules that were very precise and straightforward when translated to Polish, because they gained the null-subject in the translation process. And it is real pain in the arse when trying to write my own rules in English. In Polish those same rules could sometimes be 3-4 times shorter without loosing precision, just as this very paragraph

The thing that makes 9th unfun to me is the cognitive load.
I'm spending so much brain power trying to sieve through all the strategems, secondary objectives, relics, etc, I don't have enough brainpower left to have fun.

I play many different games, 40k is the only game where I feel the need to create an A4 cheatsheet of abilities that I keep in front of my in games and constantly refer back to.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The thing that makes 9th unfun to me is the cognitive load.
I'm spending so much brain power trying to sieve through all the strategems, secondary objectives, relics, etc, I don't have enough brainpower left to have fun.

I play many different games, 40k is the only game where I feel the need to create an A4 cheatsheet of abilities that I keep in front of my in games and constantly refer back to.

Warmachine/Hordes got to that point to me. There were so many little rules to keep track of and so many absurd clarifications of 'how rules really work' and exploits that you could chain together to get 20+" of movement on the charge,
especially if your opponent didn't know them. There was a really weird one with the troll colossus (the mountain king) where if you charged past someone and they took the free strike from leaving melee range, you got extra movement for the charge you were currently taking, could spawn whelps, eat one and heal while mid charge.

To this day, I still don't get the rules interactions that supposedly allowed it, but everyone agreed that it did, and the guy who took up the pressganger position for the area (to poach players for another store, sadly enough) was actively teaching people that was how the game was 'supposed' to be played and pretty much destroyed what had been the casual game nights at the store that was close enough for me to go to on a regular basis (~40 minutes away rather than 60 or so- it made enough of a difference on work nights)

nou wrote:


Just to add on top of that, FNP shouldn’t really be a USR, it should be a normal resolution sequence step: hit, wound, save, distribute damage, apply any FNP, remove models; and be directly included in the statline. Just like everyone thinks about it anyway.

it's not common enough to warrant being in the statline (unless you wanna do FNP(7+) on everything)

nou wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EDIT: To add clarity to my hyperbolic rant. In 5th-7th I was traveling around the country (US) and in the multiple communities that I would play in, I could always find leagues and game nights dedicated to 40k. Since the end of 8th (around Psychic Awakening time) in those same communities, it's impossible to find a pick up game or league. Everyone has moved onto other games (including some GW games). When I inquire, the sentiment seems to be the same... "9th is not fun" "there's too much book keeping" "the learning curve is too high for new players" etc etc

This rings true to me. 7th, for all its insanity, was still fun. 9th is not as fun. They've over-designed it.

As to „9th is not fun anymore”, a huge part of it for me is the pseudo-law language it is written in - reading it became a chore. That is because English language is horrible when it comes to being precise and easily readable at the same time, as it doesn’t allow null-subject sentences. So you have to have either an insane number of repetitions or long constructions to point out exactly which part of the previous sentence/paragraph you are referring to. This limitation of English when compared to e.g. Polish is also a reason why I was often amazed how some people rule-lawyered about rules that were very precise and straightforward when translated to Polish, because they gained the null-subject in the translation process. And it is real pain in the arse when trying to write my own rules in English. In Polish those same rules could sometimes be 3-4 times shorter without loosing precision, just as this very paragraph

I agree about the legalese. I can't speak too much about the differences between languages though, hah. That's fascinating.

But from just the english-legalese standpoint, as has been pointed out before a lot of the legalese seems to be purely in the service of removing options from models, too. All the extra words just being used to specify that you can only build units the way they come in the kits, which is also removing the fun from building an army/models/converting imo. It's no good.

I'm not the biggest fan of 8th, but they at least initially got one major thing right, which was improved accessibility. A free, simple rule set and cheap army lists in the form of the Indexes brought a lot of people back. It was very uncomplicated, which is really REALLY important.

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

EDIT: To add clarity to my hyperbolic rant. In 5th-7th I was traveling around the country (US) and in the multiple communities that I would play in, I could always find leagues and game nights dedicated to 40k. Since the end of 8th (around Psychic Awakening time) in those same communities, it's impossible to find a pick up game or league. Everyone has moved onto other games (including some GW games). When I inquire, the sentiment seems to be the same... "9th is not fun" "there's too much book keeping" "the learning curve is too high for new players" etc etc

This rings true to me. 7th, for all its insanity, was still fun. 9th is not as fun. They've over-designed it.

As to „9th is not fun anymore”, a huge part of it for me is the pseudo-law language it is written in - reading it became a chore. That is because English language is horrible when it comes to being precise and easily readable at the same time, as it doesn’t allow null-subject sentences. So you have to have either an insane number of repetitions or long constructions to point out exactly which part of the previous sentence/paragraph you are referring to. This limitation of English when compared to e.g. Polish is also a reason why I was often amazed how some people rule-lawyered about rules that were very precise and straightforward when translated to Polish, because they gained the null-subject in the translation process. And it is real pain in the arse when trying to write my own rules in English. In Polish those same rules could sometimes be 3-4 times shorter without loosing precision, just as this very paragraph

I agree about the legalese. I can't speak too much about the differences between languages though, hah. That's fascinating.

But from just the english-legalese standpoint, as has been pointed out before a lot of the legalese seems to be purely in the service of removing options from models, too. All the extra words just being used to specify that you can only build units the way they come in the kits, which is also removing the fun from building an army/models/converting imo. It's no good.

I'm not the biggest fan of 8th, but they at least initially got one major thing right, which was improved accessibility. A free, simple rule set and cheap army lists in the form of the Indexes brought a lot of people back. It was very uncomplicated, which is really REALLY important.

Blightlords (and soon the new csm termis) losing the option to all have the same combi weapons pisses me off soooo damn much. From a modeling point of view, it renders old squads not legal anymore, makes playing not wysiwyg a pain in the ass and makes resolving a shooting phase soooo tedious, especially considering they all have different ranges and ideal targets

I love battletech for a major reason (other than the tournament crowd avoids it which means there is no meta and no universal way to have to be forced to play like there is in 40k):

There are different ways to play the game.

I know we say "but Auticus there are multiple ways to play the game now. There's matched play, narrative play, and open play."

To that I respond: yeah but no. There are those modes, but I can count on one hand the number of people that I have ever known that will deviate from matched play.

When I say multiple ways to play:

Battletech has a crunch advanced Classic system.

Battletech has a simplified 40k style version called Alpha Strike.

Battletech has eras that you can play in that means some things don't exist.

Battletech has a whole book on advanced rules you can choose to use or not to use.

Battletech has a very deep campaign system that lets the simulation enthusiasts enjoy the game.

Battletech has a simplified campaign system that lets most 40k style players enjoy campaigning without needing to worry about a ton of details.

Battletech has different scopes of play. Ground war, an aerospace layer, an solar system scale layer, and then an entire interstellar galaxy spanning scale.

You have in Battletech a ton of ways to enjoy the game and it really caters to everybody.

Unlike 40k, which is matched play using its wonky framework meta every game.

Thats probably not a realistic ask though. But if they could give us an advanced ruleset that played more like a wargame and let the normal 40k rules be its simplified "alpha strike" version, I'd consider buying in again.

Man I haven't played Battletech in over 25 years. Might be cool to see if there's any local groups. I found my old "Command Star" of Clan Assaults (some custom) in a box a few weeks ago, lol.

kirotheavenger wrote:The thing that makes 9th unfun to me is the cognitive load.
I'm spending so much brain power trying to sieve through all the strategems, secondary objectives, relics, etc, I don't have enough brainpower left to have fun.

I play many different games, 40k is the only game where I feel the need to create an A4 cheatsheet of abilities that I keep in front of my in games and constantly refer back to.

Yes because 40K went from -epic battles in 3rd-7th to sterilized tournament play by 9th. the posted who mentioned that they think 9th is the best the game has ever been, is in the minority from my experience. many of our "hardcore" 9th ed players have moved to other games not made by GW. one of them bought his first classic battletech lance and had his first game thanks to catalysts new plastic sets.

Voss wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The thing that makes 9th unfun to me is the cognitive load.
I'm spending so much brain power trying to sieve through all the strategems, secondary objectives, relics, etc, I don't have enough brainpower left to have fun.

I play many different games, 40k is the only game where I feel the need to create an A4 cheatsheet of abilities that I keep in front of my in games and constantly refer back to.

Warmachine/Hordes got to that point to me. There were so many little rules to keep track of and so many absurd clarifications of 'how rules really work' and exploits that you could chain together to get 20+" of movement on the charge,
especially if your opponent didn't know them. There was a really weird one with the troll colossus (the mountain king) where if you charged past someone and they took the free strike from leaving melee range, you got extra movement for the charge you were currently taking, could spawn whelps, eat one and heal while mid charge.

To this day, I still don't get the rules interactions that supposedly allowed it, but everyone agreed that it did, and the guy who took up the pressganger position for the area (to poach players for another store, sadly enough) was actively teaching people that was how the game was 'supposed' to be played and pretty much destroyed what had been the casual game nights at the store that was close enough for me to go to on a regular basis (~40 minutes away rather than 60 or so- it made enough of a difference on work nights)

The reason why WM/H works is because it was designed to be a skirmish system with a smaller model count where more complex rules can work. however the guy teaching people to play the "right way" is part of the problem. those people are toxic and destroy the community. there are some silly combos that our regular group know about that we specifically do not use because it would make the game less fun to play. we also play at a lower points value and we never do steamroller rules.

Insectum7 wrote:Man I haven't played Battletech in over 25 years. Might be cool to see if there's any local groups. I found my old "Command Star" of Clan Assaults (some custom) in a box a few weeks ago, lol.

I never stopped playing it since 1987. you would be surprised how many small hardcore player groups exist out there. it tends to be a very niche thing based on location. some areas have no players, others like my area have several large groups of dedicated players.


auticus is correct. because there are many ways to officially play Battletech and not one "current" correct way it leaves a lot of options for the player base. especially since the core game mechanics have only had slight optional tweaks over the last 30+ years leaving the core rules effectively unchanged.

our group for example prefers to use the optional rules for
.3d terrain
.ECM ghost imaging
.alternate ammo
.fire as you bear (no declare fire phase as it slows the game down in our opinion)
.forced withdrawal (also to speed up game play)
.compounding pilot checks for every 20 points of damage taken.
.maxtech vehicle damage tables (to make vehicle more viable and encourage their use)
.aerospace on ground maps (aerotech II)
.no customs jobs
.ammo explosion rules (max tech)

We also like playing era 3050+ so we can use any thing we like and also pit clans VS inner sphere (not to say we do not go back and do 3025 from time to time for exploding fun)

Unless we are playing a scenario we also do not use BV or tonnage (because the crit system exists) we do point for point-1 lance can have 4 mechs or 3 mechs and a tank or 3 tanks and a helicopter etc (clan conversion is 1.3 to 1 so 2 lances face off against a clan star). the main goal for us is to build your forces around the theme of the faction or unit you play (yes the lore is that deep).

We do all these things both for speed of play as noted above and also the fun of play.

Quoted for truth. BT is very high on my list for all these reasons. With one single book, and the interwebs for getting all those Mech stats, I can play classic lance vs lance, I could play just infantry and tanks, I can even play just aircraft. Or if I want to make a day of it, combined arms on the 6x4 table, with or without hexes. $100 will actually buy a playable list.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Man I haven't played Battletech in over 25 years. Might be cool to see if there's any local groups. I found my old "Command Star" of Clan Assaults (some custom) in a box a few weeks ago, lol.

The new plastics that were released have caused an explosion of interest. They are great.

PenitentJake wrote:But I love these varieties of charge improvement as methods of distinguishing one faction from another, one subfaction from another or one unit from another. These varieties in particular provide very meaningful differentiations- more so than numeric variations. There's a huge difference between advance + charge and fallback + charge and reroll (x) charge dice. It's a very fluffy, flavourful difference that clearly denotes the character of the unit(s) it applies to:

You're conflating two separate things.

Re-roll charges, advance and charge, and fall back and charge are all distinct abilities. Those could be three different USRs.

Re-roll charges, re-roll one die on charges, re-roll any or all dice on charges, add # to charges, and roll 3D6 and drop the lowest on charges are all mechanically different methods of accomplishing the same result: you charge better. Those could all be consolidated to one USR.

Mechanical differences that meaningfully change how units play is good for flavor. Mechanical differences that amount to trivia, and may have statistically different outcomes but largely identical purpose, offer no additional flavor but do increase the complexity and cognitive burden of the system.

auticus wrote:Battletech has a crunch advanced Classic system.

Battletech has a simplified 40k style version called Alpha Strike.

Honestly if BT had a ruleset in between the very 80s demolition-derby-in-slow-motion CBT and the extremely streamlined, IMO a bit overly simplified Alpha Strike (I like having discrete weapons, I just wish they were faster to resolve), I'd be playing it every week.

But yes agreed; BT is a good example of a 'framework' where you can pick and choose what elements you want to play with and highly customize your experience.

Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Why ProHammer? It's a hybrid of 4th/5th rules designed for compatibility with all 3rd-7th edition codexes. It works with 7th edition, and isn't horrendously imbalanced, because because it cuts out a lot of the shennanigans from 7th edition codxes (formations, super-detachments, and all their special rules).

Classic 40k keeps the focus on the miniatures and their positioning + maneuvering. Not managing a CP resource pool and tracking myriad combinations of layered rules. What you see is what you get for the most part. It's less mental overhead but more nuanced core rules makes for better play.

ProHammer adds some further twists, like rules for suppression, cross-fire, screening, reactive fire, overwatch, etc. and those have all been working really well. Games are dynamic, morale leads to fun dynamics, the mission set has been good, and we keep adding onto the system (playing a map-based campaign right now).

The best is that the codexes are all available, no more waiting for GW release cycle to play out. Since we're using a custom ruleset, we have no qualms about adjusting things on the fly to make a more balanced experience.

The ideal 40k is when you can make it your own. It's unfortunately that the prevailing mode of play is "matched play or the highway" (unless you can find people up for crusade).

I like basically nothing about 9th edition - so going retro is really where it's at for us.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yes, because

Reroll one dice
Reroll both dice
Reroll failed
+x" to your charge

all have so much flavorful differences

I agree. Did you actually read my post? Did you read the piece by Catbarf? Did you read the post his post was based on?

Someone listed ALL the charge abilities including the cool ones I mentioned in my post, and the generic reroll abilities. Then CB seems to have suggested taking ALL of those abilities and converting them to the USR Charge(x) where X represents the dice rerolled. And that is the thing I said would kill the flavour.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

And were not saying that you couldnt have

Reroll
Advance+ charge
fallback + shoot/charge

as USRs either, i don't know how you got that from what was being discussed

It's entirely possible I misinterpreted CB's post (the piece that I quoted), but it really did seem like he was suggesting reducing ALL of the "I charge better than you" abilities to the Charge(x) USR.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


here is a quick list of USR we could put in the game right now :

Scout (x) : pregame move of x"
deepstrike (x) : deepstrike within x"
Reroll (list actions here)
Relentless (x) : unmodified X+'s cause extra hits
Psyker (X) : psyker level (1 cast/deny per level)
FnP (x) : X+++
fast (x) : automatically advance X"
charger : advance + charge
tricky : fallback counts as a normal move
furious (x) : x extra hits when charging

Decent list- it's more than the ones I listed in my own post, but it does include all of the ones I listed. Again, I don't disagree with USRs for some rules- I was responding to a post that seemed like it was suggesting turning interesting charge variations into generic ones- and again, maybe I was misinterpreting- Cartbarf ain't no slouch, and usually makes decent suggestions.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



and most importantly : THE DEFINITIONS OF THESE USRs WOULD BE ON THE DATASHEET DIRECTLY (and in the brb/codexes as a reminder)

Absolutely with you here!

@PenintentJake i guess i overfocused on that part of your post?

PenitentJake wrote:


Reducing ALL of that to Reroll (x) Charge dice just KILLS all of that flavour and differentiation and makes the six limbed aliens so much more similar to both the genetically enhanced and the non-genetically enhanced bipeds, that it reduces the choice to play one or the other from a choice of "skin" vs. a choice of "character class" (to use videogame terms).

Battle tech does sound cool. I remember something about the rpg three decades ago… and console and pc games were fun.

Mezmorki … much respect, man.

There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

agreed on set charge distance at movement x2 after an order to charge thereby no shooting, or shooting witha penalty only light weapons, yada... and wth moves reduced to old standards, 3, 4 maybe 5 " and cut way back on modifiers and stuff like fleet of foot and so on.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

Is it any different to shooting though?
I hate random charges because an abnormally low charge is nothing but a "feth you, you don't get to play today".

I could see a more limited charge, like 3+2d3 or something.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

its the same as premeasuring with shooting.

OnePageRules has such a simple yet efficient way to charge

in your activation you can do these actions :

Hold + Shoot
Move + Shoot
Move + Move
Move + Move (in base contact) + Melee

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

...Sort of. When I've seen it in other games it's never been that much of a problem; even in Warmachine (otherwise notorious for its finickiness and fiddly positioning) I've never seen it result in dramatic game slowdown, just because the game's scenarios are largely king-of-the-hill-based and there's no such thing as a leafblower list that can kill a significant amount of stuff with ranged attacks, so by staying all the way out of charge range you're probably setting yourself up to lose on scenario.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

its the same as premeasuring with shooting.

OnePageRules has such a simple yet efficient way to charge

in your activation you can do these actions :

Hold + Shoot
Move + Shoot
Move + Move
Move + Move (in base contact) + Melee

I much prefer this "two action" system, and it's the standard for games - Killteam, Necromunda, Starwars Legion, OPRs, Epic, and more all use essentially a two action system. It might be addressed "here's a list, pick any two" or "pick one that does two things", OPR uses the second..

It limits the amount of firepower a unit can put down as they can't use both guns and combat at the same time. Normally you have rules for using pistols in melee, either directly (shoot them as a CCW attack) or indirectly (they grant you better melee).

Specifically to charging, I also like how charges aren't crazy distances. In 40k your average charge is 13", whereas your average "just sprint across the battlefield" is 9.5". Then you get units that combine sprinting at full tilt and charging (and shooting on the way for good measure) so you're looking at a 16.5" charge! You're outpacing even fast recon elements now! And that's just average not including rerolls and such, rolling well you can outpace aircraft!
It's silly, the sudden "burst of speed" you get for charging is out of all proportion to reality.

I prefer a move + d6 charge. It doesn't have to be full on random 2d6 but I'm a hard no on set charge distances never deviating.

Set charges I've got way too much experience watching "the dance" that it doesn't seem like a wargame anymore, it seems like two forces dancing around each other waiting for the other to mess up then charge.

That goes against anything in my head where I would expect forces to run at each other, not laterally dancing around each other.

"What about gun ranges? Those are fixed and no one has a problem with that?"

Yeah. You also have to roll to hit. You don't just auto hit in range. The d6 + movement is kind of like that. You still have to roll to get in there instead of just getting to do it 100%.